BEST OF THE NET
BY JAMES TARANTO
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 3:05 p.m.
Mrs. Kerry, to the Max
Teresa Heinz Kerry, the Democratic nominee for first lady and a Republican senator's widow, tells the Associated Press it was another man, not her husband, who inspired her to switch parties and become a Democrat, the Associated Press reports:
The wife of Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, says her emotion stemmed from the way the Republican Party, to which she had pledged allegiance, treated Democratic Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia in 2002.
Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm as an Army captain during the Vietnam War, lost his re-election bid in a bitter campaign against then-Rep. Saxby Chambliss. The GOP had raised questions about Cleland's patriotism because of his position on legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. Cleland supported the concept behind the department, but insisted that a workers' rights provision be part of the bill.
Heinz Kerry, in an interview to be broadcast Tuesday on the "CBS Evening News," says Cleland's status as a triple amputee is enough to prove his patriotism.
"Three limbs and all I could think was, 'What does the Republican party need, a fourth limb to make a person a hero?' And this coming from people who have not served. I was really offended by that. Unscrupulous and disgusting," she said.
Shame on the AP for repeating as if it were a fact the canard that Republicans "raised questions about Cleland's patriotism." In fact, it was Democrats who did this because they could not defend the man's voting record.
But really, isn't it time for the Democrats to leave poor Max Cleland alone? Hardly anyone outside his home state of Georgia had heard of Cleland before he lost his re-election bid in 2002. With the Kerry campaign hammering this phony grievance, by November Cleland will be a household name, and what everyone will "know" about him is that his patriotism is a matter of controversy.
Indeed, the Democrats will probably keep dishonoring Cleland by hammering for years at the question of his patriotism, even if Kerry loses, because they seem to have a compulsion to paint themselves as victims. Consider Willie Horton. No one would recognize his name today if the Democrats hadn't kept alive the memory of his role in the 1988 election. And of course it's the Dems who keep reminding us that Horton, a murderer who brutalized a Maryland couple while out on furlough from a Massachusetts prison, happens to be black--as if his race were in any way relevant to his crimes.
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that Jon Bon Jovi, of Middletown, N.J., held a fund-raiser for John Kerry last night and is also on the defensive about his patriotism:
"I've received hate mail at my house. I've had people drive by my home and shout things out," Bon Jovi told guests gathered outside his home along the Navesink River. "And I think that they question my patriotism because I decided to stand up and have a voice. And I stood up to have a voice because I think that's the most American thing that you can do."
Rumor has it that Bon Jovi did not serve in Vietnam and may even have all four of his limbs--so even Teresa Heinz Kerry must be questioning his patriotism.
Ask a Silly Question
Why is John Kerry running for president? Reuters quotes his answer:
"I'm running for president to put America back to work. . . . I'm running for president because health care is not a benefit for the wealthy or the elected or the connected. . . . I'm running for president because I know that we could be a hell of a lot stronger in the world if we were to secure our freedom. . . . I'm running for president because I believe we can build an even more effective military."
This leaves only one question: Why is John Kerry running for president?
Kerry to Kerry: Resign
Kerry Healy, the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, is calling on John Kerry, the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam, to leave the Senate. Noting that Kerry has been present for only 14 of the past 112 Senate votes, Healey says, "It's not fair, it's not right and the public is not being well-served." We made the same point a month ago, after Kerry missed the chance to cast a deciding vote.
You Thought They'd Come Down to Earth?
"Police Dispute Mars Dem Convention Plans"--headline, FoxNews.com, June 15
Howard Dean, Marxist
Broadcasting & Cable reports that "Howard Dean said the scream speech 'never happened,' and that its repetition more than 900 times in the following week showed cable 'at its worst' and revealed cable news as a 'Murdochized' entertainment medium, not journalism."
Who are you going to believe, Dean or your own eyes?
Red Alert
We've been avoiding anti-Reagan screeds since his death for the most part, because they're mostly just too trifling to bother with. But the one on the World Socialist Web Site is different; it's hilarious. We're not sure what kind of communists the WSWS guys are, but you have to love their inversion of history:
What is hailed by the media as the crowning achievement of his international anti-communist program--the precipitous collapse of the USSR--had little to do with the policies of his administration. . . .
As historians now know, the decision to reverse course and adopt a more confrontational approach to the USSR began in the waning days of the Carter administration, with the decision in the summer of 1979 to provide funding and military support for anti-Soviet guerrillas in Afghanistan in the hope of provoking a military response by the USSR. The Reagan administration continued and escalated this bellicose policy.
The change in course had far less to do with ideology than with the deepening structural problems of world capitalism, which had been manifested in the recurring economic shocks of the 1970s. The bellicosity of the Reagan administration arose, in the final analysis, as a response to the deteriorating world-economic position of American capitalism.
Apparently word has not yet reached the World Socialists that American capitalism is doing just fine. But one observation seems plausible: that Reagan's "election to the presidency would have been inconceivable but for the political bankruptcy of American liberalism and the Democratic Party."
Hey, a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Al Gore Gets Cheated Again!
"Web Inventor Berners-Lee Wins Rich Tech Prize"--headline, ABC News Online (Australia), June 15
Good News or Old News?
Islamist Web sites have published a letter purportedly from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda's man in Iraq, to Osama bin Laden, the Associated Press reports:
Titled "The text of al-Zarqawi's message to Osama bin Laden about holy war in Iraq," the statement appeared on Web sites that have recently carried claims of responsibility for attacks in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
"The space of movement is starting to get smaller," it said. "The grip is starting to be tightened on the holy warriors' necks and, with the spread of soldiers and police, the future is becoming frightening."
The statement says the militant movement in Iraq is racing against time to form battalions that can take control of the country "four months before the formation of the promised Iraqi government, hoping to spoil their plan." It appears to refer to the government that would take office after the elections scheduled for January 2005. . . .
If the militants fail to take over Iraq, "we will have to leave for another land to uphold the (Islamic) banner, or until God chooses us as martyrs," the statement says.
But blogger "LT Smash" notes that the letter seems identical, in substance if not precise wording, to another putative Zarqawi memo, published in February. Smash's conclusion: "It's the same old Zarqawi memo from February, perhaps translated by a different person."
Terror Advocates: Boon or Hindrance?
Here's the summary Salon.com offers for a recent article:
Dyab Abou Jahjah's Arab European League calls for sharia law, celebrates 9/11 and warned Belgian Jews to break with Israel or else. Is he defending Muslims' civil rights--or inciting hatred?
What does it say about Salon that they have to ask?
On Any Other Day
Never let it be said that the 9/11 commission isn't doing useful work. The Washington Post reports that the commission "has found evidence suggesting the attacks were intended to be carried out in May or June" rather than September 2001. Here's the real shocker:
On a different day, the passenger lists of the targeted jets would have been different, and many who were killed on Sept. 11 might not have been in their offices at the World Trade Center or Pentagon.
That's so true. But imagine how much carnage would have been avoided if only the terrorists had waited until Sept. 12, when there were hardly any passengers on the target flights and the World Trade Center was practically abandoned.
Don't Even Think About Reforming Social Security
"CBO: Social Security Stronger Than Thought"--headline, Associated Press, June 14
Bed Remains the Starter
"Packers Sign Couch as Backup"--headline, San Francisco Chronicle, June 15
What Would Intense Hues Do Without Experts?
"Intense Hues Here to Stay, Experts Say"--headline, Miami Herald, June 13
What Would We Do Without Studies?
"Teens Not Reasonable, Study Confirms"--headline, Chicago Tribune, June 15
Not Too Brite--CXLVII
"A South African man told a court how he hacked to death his interior designer because she criticized his decor," Reuters reports from Johannesburg.
Oddly Enough!
(For an explanation of the "Not Too Brite" series, click here.)
'Garfield' in Race Controversy!
A discussion thread on the Internet Movie Database (all quotes are verbatim) features accusations that the new movie "Garfield," which apparently depicts the 20th president as a cartoon cat, is racist.
"Anyone notice that Garfield has black stripes, but his owner is white?" asks a reader called setht_1. "Makes you think." When another reader asks for elaboration, setht_1 replies: "The stripes are black, the owner of the cat is white. It doesn't take a genius to see the implications."
Achievist elaborates further:
Garfield is orange, which implies that he represents the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, i.e. making fun of muslim fighters because this is a comedy. The black stripes represent scars caused by torture with hot metal rods (see: Abu Ghraib prison), which sends the wrong message to kids, many of who will grow up to serve in the US army. He's also overweight, lazy, selfish and loves lasagna, which represents a racist stab at all americans of italian origin.
Who could've ever imagined that a film based on a 26 year old cartoon strip about a cat could have so many implications and controversial hidden messages?
Not everyone agrees, though, that "Garfield" is racist. "What in the hell does all this have to do with racism?" asks hutcj:
OK so Garfield has orange stripes SO WHAT????? how does that make it a racist movie? You wanna talk racism go watch All In The Family for S#@!$! sake!!.
The other day Slate's Chris Suellentrop wrote that the film is "the kind of product that Garfield creator Jim Davis likes to attach his product's name to: Predictable, unfunny, and eminently forgettable." Davis, Suellentrop maintains, fears "the backlash that's created by white-hot success"--the "intense loathing by [a] minority" of "almost any mass-market culture-industry icon."
"Through careful brand management," Suellentrop argues, Davis has "largely managed to deflate the naturally occurring cultural counterattack."
Until now.
Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. |
